Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:39:15 +1000
From: "Clare O'Farrell" <panoptique-AT-iprimus.com.au>
Subject: Re: who decides what is "global morality?"


Ravinder

I totally agree with what you are saying here. In particular, that 
there are always resistances *within* any culture to abuses of power 
within those cultures. And as you point out the West certainly does 
not have a monopoly on resistance and outrage at injustice. Is there 
any reason why people outside a culture should not support those who 
are struggling against entrenched systems of power and injustice 
within their own cultures? It goes without saying that we are not 
talking about the convenient 'resistance' rhetorics of other power 
mongers with vested interests.

>on 3/4/04 8:10 AM, Cordelia Chu at raccoon-AT-uvic.ca wrote:
>
>  I know this debate is at the tail end but I would like to  make one last
>response to Cordelia's inquiry:
>I wonder if Foucault mentioned anything about who  gets to decide what
>>  constitutes an abuse, especially since we don't have one global culture that
>>  shares one [flattened]
>>  set of beliefs and values.
>
>  There is a section in the interview 'Questions of Method'  where he makes
>references to  how changes/ reforms come about pp. 235-236 of Power
>'what is to be done ought not to be determined from above by reformers, be
>they prophetic or legislative, but by a long work of comings and goings,
>exchanges, reflections, trials, different analyses'.
>
>So, I don't' think Foucault's work  suggests a 'top down' imposition of
>values eg a sanctimonious West pronouncing on the 'non-West'.
>
>>  For example, in Chambri, Papua New Guinea, ritual initiation of adolescent
>>  male into adulthood is
>>  still performed through cutting, blood letting, and hazing 
>>(pushing, burning,
>>  forced to eat
>>  garbage, verbal insults).   Is Foucault suggesting that we have
>>  "responsibility" as "global citizen" to
>>  force them to abolish their traditional practices?
>
>The imposition of a 'fixed' tradition that never changes is problematic for
>many people.  I cannot comment on the people in Chambri as I have no idea
>what their views are on this ritual.    Traditions may be defined by
>governing elites  and my own experience is that it is very rare to have a
>singular definition/understanding of what constitutes  a particular
>ritual/tradition.  There are usually people at the margins who tend to
>question traditions, their usefulness etc.
>  We see these debates around issues of domestic violence and the rights of
>women,  female circumcision etc etc
>
>
>  I agree entirely that the hypocrisy surrounding  the foreign policies of
>many so called democratic nations in the first world are breathtaking.
>There are so many examples - the situation  of 'enemy combatant' in the
>extra-territorial space Guantanamo Bay or the incaceration of asylum seekers
>by the Australian government, a signatory to every human rights convention
>etc
>
>However, there has also  been a lot of political mileage made out of the
>'Asian values' discourse where governing elites can dismiss the rights of
>their people using the argument that this or that value is 'western'.  The
>issue of people's rights to live out their lives in safety and dignity is
>not a 'western' construct.   It has resonance in many many
>religous-philosophical codes.
>
>  Ravinder


-- 
Clare
************************************************
Clare  O'Farrell
email: panoptique-AT-iprimus.com.au
website: http://www.foucault.qut.edu.au
************************************************